DiscussMormonism.com

Many apologists defend Joseph Smith’s use of the “stone-in-hat” in translating the Book of Mormon by trying to draw parallels between biblical Prophets who used certain objects to obtain assistance from God. These Mormon defenders claim that the objects and rituals used throughout the Old & New Testament when compared to Josephs Smith's ritualistic translation methods are actually right in line with Biblical history. The following are a few biblical examples of objects used by man to obtain help from God:

NUMBERS 21:9 Moses uses a brass serpent used to heal those that had been bit by deadly snakes.
JOSHUA 3:17 The Ark of the Covenant brought Gods power to those who possessed it.
(TEV) JOSH. 24:26-27 Joshua. . . took a large stone and set it under the oak tree in the Lord's sanctuary He said to all the people, "This stone will be our witness".
OLD TEST. The Law of Moses used blood from animals for forgiveness.
2 KINGS 13:21 Touching the bones of the dead prophet Elisha brought a man back to life.
EXODUS 28:30 The Urim and Thummim used by the elders. (Although it is not exactly clear how this was used)
NUM. 5:13-22 A potion made with water and dirt from the floor is used to see if wife had been unfaithful.
JOHN 9:6 Jesus heals a blind man by covering his eye's with spittal.
NUMBERS 10:3-8 Gods help is obtained by way of silver trumpets.
ACTS 19:12 Paul heals the sick with aprons and handkerchiefs.
2 KINGS 13:14-19 The striking of an arrow on the ground will show the outcome of a war.
GENESIS 40:10-21 Joseph uses a cup to obtain help from God to interpret Pharaoh's dream.
EZEKIEL 5:1-4 By cutting of Ezekiel's hair and burning some and tossing some in the wind will cause the destruction of Israel by fire.


Here is where this argument goes very wrong. The question is not necessarily in the “what” but rather in the “who”.

The problem for many is not so much the “what”, it is true that from time to time God has used unconventional methods to bring about conventional results. So the “stone-in-hat” may not look so different when compared to some of the biblical miracles mentioned above.

The question is in the “who”. When apologists elevate Joseph Smith to the same level as the great biblical patriarchs and prophets like Moses, Paul, Jacob and Abraham the supposed parallels suddenly break down very quickly.

Let’s consider a few examples of biblical Prophets who displayed moments of weakness:

• In Exodus 2:11-15 Moses saw an Egyptian smiting a Hebrew so he slew the Egyptian and hid him in the sand.
• In Genesis 12:10-20 Out of fear for his wife’s life, Abraham told his wife to lie to the Egyptians and say she was his sister so they could safely cross into Egypt.
• In Genesis 9:21 we read that Noah was intoxicated with fermented wine from his vineyard.
• We read in Jonah 1:1-17 that Jonah disobeyed God and tried to flee to Tarshish, but was swallowed by a large fish.



Now let's examine Smith:
• Joseph lied to his wife and the world about his polygamy until his death
• Joseph marries 11 women who were still married to other men.
• Joseph’s involvement in the Occult is well documented, which includes “stone-in-hat” trickery.
• Joseph’s family involvement in the Occult is well documented, showing family tradition in Occult practices.
• Joseph is arrested and brought before and examination for “glass looking” which was illegal in NY.
• Joseph shows disregard for Isaac Hale and elopes with his daughter Emma. In Gen. 29:20 we read of what a prophet would do when a future father-in-law refuses his daughter’s hand in marriage. We read how Jacob served Laban, his future father-in-law, for 7 years before he was allowed to marry Rachel.
• Joseph tries to sell the scripture that was supposedly reveled to him from God.
• Joseph’s reveled scripture (Book of Mormon) is full of anachronisms and patently false statements regarding the origins of the Native American Indian.
• Mental gymnastics must be employed in order to make most of Smith’s revelations work, for example the Kirtland bank scandal, Grease spot prophecy, live till 85 and see the Lord, and many more.
• Another key book of scripture, the book of Abraham has been shown as fraud.
• Clear plagiarism of Freemasonry for use in his temple.

This list could go on much longer.

It is clear, the critic does not necessarily question the “what” but it is the “who”.

God did not use a 19th century charlatan to bring forth truth, the Lord would not select someone like Smith, this would be a complete breakdown in reason and logic, after all is man not Intelligence?

Dcharle wrote:God did not use a 19th century charlatan to bring forth truth, the Lord would not select someone like Smith, this would be a complete breakdown in reason and logic, after all is man not Intelligence?

How do you know? You've never spoken with God directly. That is the whole point to Mormonism to start with - ask God if he talked with Joseph Smith and go with what God tells you directly, face-to-face. I'm sure Joseph Smith would be more than willing to accept that result instead of your assumptions about what God did or did not do.

Tobin, I understand your emotional connection to the Church, I also had it for a very long time. This is admittedly my own personal opinion. However, for me, when I eventually learned of all the historical and intellectual problems, including the issues found in this post, I had to step back and look at it all objectively - I could not accept it any longer, for me, it defied reason and logic. I still have a very strong emotional connection to the church, however I no longer confuse this with a witness of truth. I have the same emotional connection to Lagoon, Utah's premier Amusement Park. Having been raised in Utah in the 1970's, our family would often go, I loved Lagoon as a boy! I no longer live in Utah, but I often take my family to Utah to visit extended family and we will always make a Lagoon stop. Even today, after all these years just seeing the white roller coaster again, brings back many warm feelings, and strong emotions - I have a deep connection to many similar places in Utah, however I recognize these feelings for what they are, emotions.

For many the church draws out the same feelings and emotions, however we cannot confuse these human feelings, that everyone feels, as some sort of divine intervention. This "emotional epistemology" is the most unreliable method for determining truth. Just imagine if our legal system was based upon, feeling, it would be a disaster! No, we must rely on our God given intellect to avoid deception.

I have not believed in the Mormon truth claims for well over 6 years now, but I proudly proclaim my Mormon heritage and embrace the culture. Recently I had a non-Mormon coworker ask me about Joseph Smith and his "stone-in-hat" methods that he heard from one of the national media outlets, he was sure that the media had it wrong. As I began explaining that the media version of the "stone-in-hat" was actually not that far wrong - we both could not discuss it with a straight face, it's just that crazy! It's almost to the point that if your willing to accept this, I also have some Arizona ocean front property for sale, it's going cheap and fast but you better get in now, no time to wait! Sounds very "snake oil" salesman like...

Dcharle wrote:
This list could go on much longer.

I don't think this is a good argument. You list a few weaknesses of men in the Bible, you are only getting a scant record of these people, and many of them don't even have enough evidence to think they were even real people. This is not the same for Joseph Smith. He only lived less then a couple of centuries ago and has volumes of historical information about him and his life. It shouldn't be surprising that we would find many more examples of moments of weakness then for other figures who have only a few pages to go on. It is better to think about whether God would do some of the things they claim, and whether their claims fit with what we know.

...

I agree, my point is that it is the "apologists" that use these parallels between biblical prophets and Smith. I have heard folks like Van Hale and Martin Tanner draw upon these comparisons in an attempt to excuse away Joseph's use of the stone in hat.

Dcharle wrote:Tobin, I understand your emotional connection to the Church, I also had it for a very long time. This is admittedly my own personal opinion. However, for me, when I eventually learned of all the historical and intellectual problems, including the issues found in this post, I had to step back and look at it all objectively - I could not accept it any longer, for me, it defied reason and logic. I still have a very strong emotional connection to the church, however I no longer confuse this with a witness of truth. I have the same emotional connection to Lagoon, Utah's premier Amusement Park. Having been raised in Utah in the 1970's, our family would often go, I loved Lagoon as a boy! I no longer live in Utah, but I often take my family to Utah to visit extended family and we will always make a Lagoon stop. Even today, after all these years just seeing the white roller coaster again, brings back many warm feelings, and strong emotions - I have a deep connection to many similar places in Utah, however I recognize these feelings for what they are, emotions.

For many the church draws out the same feelings and emotions, however we cannot confuse these human feelings, that everyone feels, as some sort of divine intervention. This "emotional epistemology" is the most unreliable method for determining truth. Just imagine if our legal system was based upon, feeling, it would be a disaster! No, we must rely on our God given intellect to avoid deception.

I have not believed in the Mormon truth claims for well over 6 years now, but I proudly proclaim my Mormon heritage and embrace the culture. Recently I had a non-Mormon coworker ask me about Joseph Smith and his "stone-in-hat" methods that he heard from one of the national media outlets, he was sure that the media had it wrong. As I began explaining that the media version of the "stone-in-hat" was actually not that far wrong - we both could not discuss it with a straight face, it's just that crazy! It's almost to the point that if your willing to accept this, I also have some Arizona ocean front property for sale, it's going cheap and fast but you better get in now, no time to wait! Sounds very "snake oil" salesman like...

Hi Dcharle,

Actually, I have no "emotional" attachment to the Church. I have been both an ex-mormon and an atheist. I do believe very much in the need for God either to show up and tell you that these things are really true, or to simply discount them as a hoax and go on your merry way. That is all I'm advocating.

As far as the "stone-in-the-hat", you do realize that the seer stones were mean to be used covered. In ancient times, they would wear a veil instead, so Joseph Smith covering his face with a hat and peering into these devices is very consistent with their use.

...

Mktavish wrote:In my experience you don't need veil or stones. But I have had my experiences with magic stones and magic articles of clothing. These all hinge on ones level of faith in them. Much like Voodoo

Hardly. You use devices all the time and they are not based on magic or voodoo. Just because God gives men advanced devices to use, you presume it is magic. I'm sure a TV or an iPad would seem like magic to a caveman too, that does not make it so. You really seem to have a very primitive view of the world.

Tobin wrote:

Mktavish wrote:In my experience you don't need veil or stones. But I have had my experiences with magic stones and magic articles of clothing. These all hinge on ones level of faith in them. Much like Voodoo

Hardly. You use devices all the time and they are not based on magic or voodoo. Just because God gives men advanced devices to use, you presume it is magic. I'm sure a TV or iPad would seem like magic to a caveman too, that does not make it so. You really seem to have a very primitive view of the world.

In what way is a rock, or a stick, an "advanced device?"